You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

“Africa doesn’t need a savior—America needs to save itself.”-Boniface Mwangi

“Europe belongs to the Europeans.”-The Dalai Lama

While it is all well and good to decry the damage being done to the West, there must be an adult, mature, considered alternative to not only the various civilization-destroying ideologies of the Left, but to the mainstream conservatism that has conserved nothing. When you accept the Left’s premises, as most mainstream conservatives have done, you’ve already lost. And we have, in fact, lost. We lost a long time ago. We now live under an occupation government.

The Left uses idealism and utopian rhetoric in order to mask their cravenness, greed, and malice. The Left has been wildly successful in not only framing the “debate,” but in defining its terminology. This is particularly vital when we consider that the highest ethical organization of peoples is along hereditary national lines (ie-Hungary for Hungarians, Quebec for Quebecois, Cyprus for Cypriots, etc.), but the frame is that the highly disruptive movement of peoples—which is also terrible for the environment—and “humanitarian” regime change wars are defined as moral and virtuous; similarly, the Chinese, with their deplorable human rights record, highly censorious regime, and mass amount of pollution are given a pass simply because they have moneyed interests and they are non-Western. The only two non-white ethnicities that have enough cultural over-lap to be called nominal allies in the Japanese and the Igbo have each been constrained by the globalist forces in their own right. There is perhaps another discussion to be had about certain groups in the Egyptian Coptics, Syriacs, Armenians, Georgians, and Persians, but this would be too much of a digression from the present point, and anyway, we can see the intense global pressures to “liberalize” on all of those groups, while some of them are massacred by their ethnic and/or ideological enemies. The Coptics in particular have almost been totally ethnically cleansed from an Egypt that rightfully belongs to them. There is also a discussion to be had about whether or not these groups classify as “white,” but again, that is for another time.

Japan is now targeted for the same level of population-replacement immigration as the West, and the Igbo were starved and massacred in the millions in order to remain slaves of the ramshackle entity known as Nigeria. China also does not countenance the progressive platitudes used to wear down normality and resistance to the neo-liberal project as seen throughout Western Europe and the Anglosphere. Eastern Europe remains a wait-and-see proposition.

This is where we find ourselves today, as Anton Fedyashin and Anita Kondoyanidi write: “Solzhenitsyn played the double role of a dissident in the Soviet Union and a critic of Western materialism, which made him equally unpopular with the Soviet government and the Western liberal media.” Very clearly the false dilemma between communism, capitalism, or “the third way” of neo-liberalism is what we aim to break out of. In order to extricate ourselves from this false dilemma, we must understand that there are other options. The Third and Fourth Positionists have the best arguments at present, though personally, given my embrace of the nation-state as the ideal conduit to resisting globalism and universalism, as well as its expression of the people in state form, I hew toward the Third, though this is not to say the ideas of the Fourth are without merit. Contention over the nation-state is probably the key here. Regarding the Third Position, it is important to remember that political systems are also a product of their times and should be, though they are not always, a reflection of their people. Greg Johnson makes the astute point in The White Nationalist Manifesto that while the Old Right had its application then, to simply try and re-create the systems of 1930s Germany or Italy, for example, is an anachronistic absurdity. It does not, however, mean that we cannot learn from these systems and that much of their ideas can’t be applied to modernity. They can.

Organizationally, the only moral and practicable means to resist globalism and ensure maximal stability and peace is through the creation of nation-states for each ethnos. Of course we project empathy and identification with our race beyond national lines, but there are hard limits to what we can affect past the nation. Of course you can empathize with others and you can certainly identify with your race (in fact, racial identification is an evolutionary necessity as inclusive fitness), however we reach practical limitations on what we can do outside of the confines of our geographic area and outside of our particular ethnicity, for a myriad of reasons. Thus we reach my idea of a comity of peoples: racial solidarity, national loyalty. Each man and woman commits themselves fully to their ethnos, and just as the group secures the rights and security of the individual, so, too, does a pan-Indo-European comity do the same for our individual nation-states. It’s what the European Union could have been had it not been hijacked by greedy and genocidal lunatics that literally want to submerge Europe under an African tide. Look at Guy Verhofstadt’s proposal to create a single Euro-African economic area, which would have free movement of goods, yes, but also people. With Africa’s population set to quadruple by the end of the century, and Europeans’ populations falling, that is the end of Europe as we know it…and they know it.

Racial and civilizational markers are a good proxy when we are talking about the issues confronting Indo-Europeans internationally. Plus, as I’ve stated before, a comity of peoples is the only way each ethnicity gets its own homeland. It might seem like a paradox to say that we must work collectively to realize our individual aims, but it’s not. Just as the group or tribe guarantees the safety and the rights of the individual, the same applies as Australians and Americans and Germans and Russians all mutually support each other as they de-colonize and re-conquer their nations. It in no way implies a strict universalism but rather acknowledges common interests, origin, and, yes, some universal principles/values unique to the cultures whites build.

We often discuss “Western civilization” and its hallmarks, but such a discussion remains bracketed by ideological constraints. Where do “Western values” come from? The sky? No, they originate from Westerners who are Indo-European, or white. There are also racial proclivities, for evolutionarily the propagation of one’s genes is of primary importance. A Slovakian will therefore feel a much closer bond to a Spaniard or Scotsman than they would a Turk for this simple reason. But can you organize a nation on race only? Short answer: no. You can project past the limitations of the nation-state, but you cannot consanguineously organize past it without sacrificing some essential part of who you are. Understand that our preference for our own is literally encoded in our genome.  

Mother Europe should have explicit ethno-states that always remain if not a totality, then an extreme majority of at least 90% for each specific ethnicity. Belgium, Switzerland, and the other few multi-ethnic countries could decide to remain intact, but it is clear that they must retain a racial super-majority for social cohesion and national solvency. Multi-culturalism must be rejected wholesale, and as far as multi-racialism, in Europe, there is no such discussion. It is the racial homeland of whites, and must be preserved as a white racial totality with no concessions or equivocations.

Race is a fine (temporary) proxy in multi-racial societies such as many Western nations have become. Ultimately, however, we will need to re-establish stringent codes for what defines an American, a New Zealander, a Canadian, an Australian, et cetera. Understanding history and context, both the limitations of civic nationalism and the impracticalities of White Nationalism in the United States and other former colonies at the present time, among other considerations, what I am proposing for the United States and other former colonies is a racially-backed nationalism that seems to me to be the best way forward for now; it would be an explicitly racial constitutional amendment whereby the white proportion of the nation should never fall below a set number, say 75-85%. It would be a kind of Singaporean model. In the future, it may be revised upward, but this could work as a temporary detente until we can capably manage the return of alien peoples to their homelands and arrive at a final decision on what to do with the culturally-distinct black population whose ancestors came as indentured servants and slaves. This also allows for the presence of non-whites who share our beliefs and values but does not jeopardize the general consensus through multi-cultural atomization. I believe former colonies like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada should adopt similar policies but, lacking the philosophical flexibility of the United States and sans a large multi-generational population of former slaves, ought to aim for a 90% white racial floor.

The moral imperative of eliminating slavery as an institution was spear-headed by Western nations, who committed great time, energy, and resources to bringing about its terminus, though you’d be hard-pressed to say they’ve been justly rewarded for their trouble. One of the central fixtures—perhaps the central fixture—of the “black experience” in America is “the struggle”: for emancipation, for freedom, for equal rights. The problem with this trope of “resistance” and “the struggle” is that it hasn’t been relevant for at least fifty years, and yet it lurches on, zombie-like, led by the rotting corpses of Emmett Till, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the like. The most telling image is of a mulatto Colin Kaepernick and his then-$19 million annual salary, the same Kaepernick who was adopted and raised by a white family, who had never registered to vote, kneeling to protest the national anthem. It became a rallying cry for “social justice,” but it was nothing more than spectacle. It was pure theater, and poorly-executed at that. If blacks are not out burning their own communities down or wantonly attacking people they’re being induced to agitate for us to do more for them. There’s something very anti-liberal there, and you should think long and hard on that.

In order to reverse the demographic calamities that have befallen the West, I am wrestling with how exactly this is to be done in the most humane way possible. Step one is obviously close the borders, stop inviting people in, and stop the welfare payments that incentivize people coming and staying. Build massive double-walls that would make Constantinople blush. Shift the rhetoric to pro-nationalism, which will make many feel uncomfortable and leave. Prioritize nationals in hiring and government programs. Ban seditious NGOs. That's a start. It won't solve everything but if we also get birthrates back up, and stop subsidizing non-whites having more children, we can still shift the percentages where the minority are essentially irrelevant. You could also (should also) restrict voting to nationals only and even create a specific definition of citizenship that honors the nation's ancestry. The US and Canada must end birthright citizenship. Not only should illegals not be given a path to citizenship, they should be categorically barred from ever entering the country again, and if they are caught trying to cross the border again, we can only assume the worst of intentions and they should be shot on sight. This is called a deterrent.

We have now before us a choice: burying our heads in the sand as sea-change demography transforms us into Brazil or worse, Africa, which will necessarily lead to our oblivion, or the reassertion of not just our right to exist but to flourish. As William Gayley Simpson wrote:

Every eruption of great vital strength is a danger to the weak…All are equal, is the cry...[but] it is the suicide of a people when they allow themselves to be made into a “melting pot,” where you no longer have a people but a hodge-podge of peoples, a stew of conflicting bloods, traditions, values, and tastes. It is the betrayal and surrender of those differentiations that their ancestors painfully achieved through many thousands of years, and which give their existence on the Earth all its worth and meaning…Our belief in equality…[is] a betrayal of life—I should say, rather, of quality of life. Where all are believed equal, the voice of the superior man is drowned in the roar of the mob, and taste tends to gravitate to the level of the gutter. This is happening all over America. Furthermore, wherever this belief in equality spreads, there goes a disbelief in the importance of heredity, of blood…It is no less than a crime against life when the superior is sacrificed to the inferior, a crime that is in no wise mitigated nor its effects alleviated when the sacrifice is made by a man’s own free will and choice.

The presumption of equality—outside of the law—is ludicrous. Blind justice is essential to a just and healthy state, but to extend this notion beyond the legal sphere, and to imbue it with sentimentalism, is a recipe for disaster and a violation of both nature and divine Providence. Do not throw your life away as a pearl before swine. Do not allow yourself to get bogged down in the trash. Every second on this earth is precious; most don’t understand the gift they’ve been given and they squander it for trinkets and false promises. Hierarchies are not only natural, they are inevitable. Embrace it and re-claim your birthright, or someone else will.


John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

John Q. Publius writes for Republic Standard and runs the blog The Anatomically Correct Banana.